1

An Initial Exploration of the Potential for Deep Borehole Disposal of

Nuclear Wastes in South Korea1

Jungmin KANG

Visiting Scholar, SAIS-JHU

Associate Nautilus-ARI, Seoul

(Final Draft, 2 December 2010)

INTRODUCTION

South Korea’s first commercial nuclear power reactor was placed into operation in 1978. Today,

the Republic of Korea (ROK) has twenty reactors in operation: 16 pressurized-water reactors

(PWRs) with a total electric generating capacity of 15 billion watts (GWe) and 4 CANDU

heavy-water reactors (HWRs) with a combined electric-power-generation capacity of 2.8 GWe.

An additional 8 PWRs (with a total capacity of 9.6 GWe) are under construction to be put into

operation by 2016 and plans have been announced to build 11 additional PWRs (15.4 GWe) by

2030.2 That will bring South Korea’s total nuclear generating capacity up to 43 GWe.

As in other countries with nuclear power plants, South Korea’s public has concerns about the

management of radioactive waste. As the available space in-reactor storage pools become

saturated with irradiated fuel assemblies, spent fuel management has become a hot issue. Korea

Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP), South Korea’s nuclear utility, has asserted that its nuclear

power plants will begin to run out of spent-fuel storage capacity in 2016.3

At the moment, South Korea’s debate regarding “back-end” nuclear fuel cycle issues (spent fuel

management) is focused on “pyroprocessing,” driven by the Korean Atomic Energy Research

Institute (KAERI). This is partially because Japan has established its own spent fuel reprocessing

capacity, and because, although a reprocessing plant could not be put into operation by the time

that the PWR spent fuel pools begin to fill up, the expectation that the fuel will be reprocessed

could provide a justification for establishing central storage for spent fuel near the site where the

reprocessing plant would be built. Whether or not it pursues reprocessing, South Korea needs

sites to accommodate geological repositories for its spent fuel and/or for the high level wastes

(HLW) produced during reprocessing.

The deep borehole disposal concept has been recently receiving global attention due to its

potential technical and cost advantages when compared with “normal” geologic disposal. The

deep borehole concept involves drilling into crystalline basement rocks to a depth of 3 to 5-km,

then placing waste canisters in the bottom 1-2 kilometers of the boreholes and capping the

borehole such that the wastes are permanently isolated..

1 This study was funded by Nautilus Institute from a grant from the MacArthur Foundation.

2 National Energy Committee, The 1st National Energy Basic Plan (2008-2030), August 2008 (Korean). Includes 4

PWRs (5.6 GWe) to be brought into operation between 2017 and 2021, Ministry of Knowledge Economy, The 4th

Basic Plan of Long-Term Electricity Supply and Demand (2008 ~ 2022), December 2008. 3 Ki-Chul Park, "Status and Prospect of Spent Fuel Management in South Korea," Nuclear Industry, August 2008

(Korean).

2

This report briefly explores the concept of using deep borehole disposal in South Korea. It

begins with a review of international experience to date in evaluating the prospects of deep

borehole disposal of nuclear wastes, then provides an initial review of the geologic suitability of

the technology for Korea. The paper offers a review of the institutions, laws, and practices

related to spent fuel management in the ROK, and offers tentative conclusions as to the

applicability of deep borehole disposal for the nation and the Korean Peninsula.

DEEP BOREHOLE DISPOSAL (DBD)

History of DBD

Although US evaluation of DBD began in the 1950s,4 more recent studies, beginning in the

1990s, have been more significant. A recent MIT study summarized principal earlier studies on

DBD as shown in Table 1.5 A 2003 MIT report recommended that DBD for spent fuel had the

potential to significantly reduce risk compared to mined repositories, leading to an on-going

project by the joint Sandia National Labs and MIT group to explore DBD as a possible

alternative to the (developed but not completed, and recently cancelled) mined repository at

Yucca Mountain, in Nevada.6

4 Peter Swift, "Goals for a Deep Borehole Disposal Workshop," SNL-MIT Workshop on Deep Borehole Disposal,

Washington, DC, March 15, 2010. Available in

www.mkg.se/uploads/SNL_MIT_borehole_workshop_report_final_100507.pdf. 5 Benyamin Sapiie and Michael J. Driscoll, A Review of Geology-Related Aspects of Deep Borehole Disposal of

Nuclear Wastes: For the MIT Study on The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, MIT-NFC-TR-109, August 2009. 6 Fergus Gibb, "Deep borehole disposal (DBD) methods," Nuclear Engineering International, 25 March 2010

3

Table 1: Summary Comparison of Deep Borehole Concepts

Concept of DBD

In the DBD concept, a borehole is drilled in crystalline basement rocks to a depth on the order of

5 km. The bottom a 1-2 km of the borehole is used as the waste disposal zone, which might hold

200-400 canisters, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.7 Figure 1 implies that the region of crystalline

basement rocks is hydraulically decoupled from regions of groundwater flow. As shown in

Figure 2, one such borehole, for example, could hold about 100-200 tonne heavy-metal (tHM) of

pressurized water reactors (PWRs) spent fuel.

7 Patrick V. Brady et al., Deep Borehole Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, SAND2009-4401, August

2009; N. Chapman and F. Gibb, "A truly final waste management solution," Radwaste Solutions 10/4, p.26-37

(2003); Michael J. Driscoll, "A Case for Disposal of Nuclear Waste in Deep Boreholes," SNL-MIT Workshop on

Deep Borehole Disposal, Washington, DC, March 15, 2010.

4

Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Deep Borehole Disposal

DBD would have potential advantages over normal geologic disposal, as it would place waste

canisters at greater depths with less dynamic hydro-geological conditions, which increases

confidence that eventual impacts on the biosphere by the radioactive waste can be avoided or

substantially reduced. Low permeability in the deep crystalline basement rocks and the high

salinity in the deep aquifers found there suggest that the chances of interaction of wastes with

groundwater should be minimal. Crystalline basement rocks are relatively common at depths of 2

km to 5 km in many countries, leading to wider availability of suitable sites for DBD. In addition

to greater safety through better isolation of wastes from the biosphere, greater security against

terrorist diversion of wastes disposed of in DBD and better cost-effectiveness would be

additional potential benefits.8

8 Bill W. Arnold et al., "Into the deep," Nuclear Engineering International, 25 March 2010; Gibb, F.G.F., Taylor,

K.J. and Burakov, B.E. "The 'granite encapsulation' route to the safe disposal of Pu and other actinide," Journal of

Nuclear Materials, Volume 374 (3), p.364 – 369 (2008). As shown in Figure 2, the waste at the bottom of the

borehole would be protected by 3-4 km of clay and concrete plugs and backfill, requiring a major drilling operation

to penetrate to where the wastes have been buried, and making it highly unlikely that a terrorist group could access

the wastes undetected.

5

Figure 2: Schematic of Deep Borehole Disposal

Site Selection

Heiken et al. list four factors that define an ideal site for DBD as follows.9

- Crystalline rock at the surface or within 1 km of the surface.

- A region that is tectonically stable.

- An area located away from population centers.

- A region not near international borders (i.e. >200 km)

Retrievability

The difficulty of retrieving wastes after final repository closure is one of the contentious issues

with respect to DBD. The 2009 MIT report summarizes the main arguments for and against

9 Heiken, G, Woldegabriel, G, Morley, R, Plannerer, H and Rowley, J. Disposition of excess weapons plutonium in

deep boreholes – Site selection handbook. Report of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Report LA-13168-MS.

1996.

6

retrievable variants of DBD, as shown in Table 2, and reaches the conclusion that non-

retrievability/permanent disposal is preferred.10

Table 2: Nuclear Spent Fuel Emplacement Options and Strategies

Borehole Drilling Experience

A 2009 MIT report summarizes borehole drilling experience in the past more recently, as

described in Table 3.11

A 2009 Sandia National Laboratory (US) study estimates a cost of about

$20 million for construction of each 5 km-depth borehole, which would require about 110 days

to drill, not including emplacement operations, licensing, and other activities. This estimate

assumes the use existing drilling technologies.12

10

Benyamin Sapiie and Michael J. Driscoll, A Review of Geology-Related Aspects of Deep Borehole Disposal of

Nuclear Wastes: For the MIT Study on The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, MIT-NFC-TR-109, August 2009. 11

Benyamin Sapiie and Michael J. Driscoll, A Review of Geology-Related Aspects of Deep Borehole Disposal of

Nuclear Wastes: For the MIT Study on The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, MIT-NFC-TR-109, August 2009. 12

Patrick V. Brady et al., Deep Borehole Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, SAND2009-4401, August

2009.

7

Table 3: Experience with Deep Boreholes into Crystalline Rock

SUITABILITY OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA FOR GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL

Appropriate siting of DBD is very important to assure the safety of disposal of spent fuel or

HLW. The site used should have characteristics suitable to prevent or retard the potential

movement of radionuclides from the disposal system to the biosphere. The natural geologic

characteristics of the site play an important role in the disposal concept.13

A past study14

provides the following guidelines on desirable site characteristics of DBD, ideally

favoring a combination of:

(1) crystalline rock at the surface or within 1 km of the surface;

(2) a region that is tectonically stable;

(3) an area located away from population centers; and

(4) a region not near international borders.

13

IAEA, Siting of Geological Disposal Facilities: A Safety Guide, Safety Series No. 111-G-41 (1994). 14

At an ideal site for DBD, it must be demonstrated that there is no fluid movement from the bottom of the borehole

at a depth of 4 kilometers and there will be no significant migration over the next million years. Grant Heiken et al.,

Disposition of Excess Weapon Plutonium in Deep Boreholes: Site Selection Handbook, LA-13168-MS, September

1996.

8

Geology of the Korean Peninsula

The Korean peninsula is located between the Eurasian continent and the west Pacific mobile belt.

More than half of the exposed area of the peninsula consists of Precambrian metamorphic rocks

and Paleozoic-Mesozoic plutonic rocks, while sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Paleozoic and

Mesozoic era are distributed on those basements accompanied with tectonic movement.15

Based on these lithological characteristics, formation stages and continuity of geological history,

a division of tectonic provinces on the Korean peninsula is shown in Figure 3.16

According to a KAERI study,17

the massif and fold belts are of primary interest among the

tectonic units in Korean peninsula with regard to radioactive waste disposal. Nangnim massif,

Kyonggi massif, and Sobaeksan massif are Archean-early Proterozoic massif. Hambuk fold belt

and Okchon fold belt are upper Proterozoic-upper Paleozoic fold belt. Kyonggi massif,

Sobaeksan massif and Okchon fold belt are located in the southern part of the Korean peninsula.

It is desirable that DBD facilities be located away from population centers. Figure 4 shows

population densities in South Korea as of 2005.18

Combining consideation of the tectonic

provinces and the areas of low population density in South Korea provides a rough idea of which

areas of the ROK might be suitable sites for DBD.

15

C.S.Kim et al., "Lithological Suitability for HLW Repository in Korea," Proceedings of Symposium entitled

Technologies for the Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Power Plants and Back End Nuclear Fuel

Cycle Activities, Taejon, Republic of Korea, 30 August - 3 September 1999. 16

Ibid. 17

Ibid. 18

Modified from "Statistics Korea" (http://atlas.ngii.go.kr/map/territory.jsp?fcode=03)

9

Figure 3: Tectonic Provinces in Korean Peninsula

10

Figure 4: Population Density Map of South Korea in 2005 (Legend: persons per sq. km)

Regional Fractures in South Korea

In South Korea, there are a few large-scale tectonic fractures, while small-scale fractures are

evenly distributed throughout the southern peninsula, as shown in Figure 5.19

19

Ibid.

11

Figure 5: Fracture Map Superimposed on Tectonic Provinces in South Korea

Seismicity

As the Korean peninsula is located in the area where the Eurasian plate contacts with the west

Pacific mobile belt, earthquakes in Korea are ascribed to intra-plate seismicity.20

Table 4 and

Figure 6 show historical seismicity records for the Korean peninsula.21

Even Though low-level

earthquake activity has been a historical feature of the Korean peninsula, a large portion of the

earthquakes that have occurred have been in the southern part of the peninsula.

20

Ibid. 21

Wenjie Zhai et al., "Research in historical earthquakes in the Korean peninsula and its circumferential regions,"

Acta Seismologica Sinica, Vol.17, No.3, p.366-371, May 2004.

12

Table 4: Statistics of Magnitude >4.75 Historical Earthquakes on the Korean Peninsula

Figure 6: Epicentral Distribution of Historical Earthquakes in the Korean Peninsula

Existing Concept of Spent Fuel Disposal System in South Korea (Mined Repository)

For comparison purpose, this study describes below a concept of a Korean disposal system

designed by Korea Atomic Research Institute (KAERI). KAERI’s conceptual geologic

13

repository is designed to be located in granite rocks at depth of 500 m, although the real

repository site has not been chosen as yet. The layout and other specifics of the repository design

are provided in Figure 7 and Table 5.22

The total capacity of spent fuels disposal in the

repository is assumed to be 20,000 tHM of PWR spent fuel and 16,000 tHM of CANDU spent

fuel.

According to the KAERI research referenced above, the peak temperature of the bentonite buffer

material in which double-walled metal canisters containing spent fuels are buried should be

lower than 100 ºC to assure the long term integrity of its physical and chemical properties. With

this constraint, the distance between the parallel tunnels in the repository is 40 m, and the

minimum distance between two deposition holes for PWR canisters and CANDU canisters are 6

m and 3 m, respectively. These distances are calculated assuming that heat generation is 1,540

W for the PWR canister and 760 W for the CANDU canister, based on spent fuel cooling times

of 40 and 30 years, respectively prior to introduction into the repository. This concept of disposal

system was designed to be used to evaluate the feasibility of a high-level waste/spent fuel

disposal system for the ROK, and to help to formulate data needed to carry out a long-term

safety analysis.23

Figure 7: Layout of the Korean Reference Disposal System

Table 5: Length and the Number of Disposal Tunnels

22

Jongyoul Lee et al., "Concept of a Korean Reference Disposal System for Spent Fuels," Journal of Nuclear

Science and Technology, Vol.44, No.12, p.1565-1573, 2007. Available as

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/44/12/1565/_pdf. 23

Ibid.

14

SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH KOREA

Institutional Framework in the Radioactive Waste Management

With regard to the governmental organizations concerned with radioactive waste, the main

administrative authorities in the ROK are the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE), which

supervises the nuclear power program, and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

(MEST), which is responsible for nuclear safety regulations including the licensing of nuclear

facilities. The Atomic Energy Committee (AEC) under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister is

the supreme organization for decision-making on national nuclear policies. The Nuclear Safety

Commission (NSC) under the jurisdiction of MEST is responsible for matters concerning the

safety of nuclear facilities and radioactive waste management. MEST is also responsible for

developing licensing criteria for the construction and operation of radioactive waste disposal

facilities, developing technical standards for operational safety measures, and for assuring safe

management of radioactive waste at every stage of the site selection, design, construction,

operation, closure and post-closure of radioactive waste disposal facilities. MKE also develops

and implements management policies regarding radioactive waste treatment, storage and

disposal. These policies are prepared by MKE and deliberated by the AEC before

implementation.24

Legal Framework in the Radioactive Waste Management

Key ROK National laws related to spent fuel and radioactive waste management are the Atomic

Energy Act (AEA) and the Radioactive Waste Management Act (RWMA). The AEA provides

for matters concerning safety regulations, including permission for construction and operation of

radioactive waste disposal facilities. The RWMA, which determines all aspects of managing

radioactive waste, was announced on March 28, 2008, and was enacted on March 31, 2010.

Based on the RWMA, the Korea Radioactive Waste Management Organization and the

Radioactive Waste Management Fund were established. According to the RWMA, KHNP, the

utility company, should annually deposit to the Fund the cost of decommissioning of nuclear

24

radioactive waste management in Rep. of Korea

(http://www.nea.fr/rwm/profiles/Korea%20report%202010%20web.pdf)

15

power plants, disposal of low and intermediate level waste (LILW), and spent fuel management.

Figure 8 shows the financing structure for radioactive waste management in South Korea.25

Current Practice in the Management of the Spent Fuel

At its 253rd

meeting in 2004, the AEC announced that national policy for spent fuel management

would be decided later in consideration of progress of domestic and international technology

development, and that spent fuel would be stored at a reactor site by 2016 under KHNP’s

responsibility.26

South Korea has not decided whether to directly dispose of or recycle spent fuel.

Currently, South Korea has no national plan on geologic disposal of spent fuel or HLW.

Therefore there are no regulatory and licensing issues relevant to DBD in South Korea either.

Figure 8: Financing Structure of Radioactive Waste Management in South Korea

Status and Prospect of Nuclear Power in South Korea

As described in the introductory part of this report, currently in South Korea 16 PWRs and 4

HWRs are in operation, with 8 PWR units under construction and due to be completed by 2016,

and 11 more PWRs to deployed by 2030. Table 6 shows the generating capacities and expected

initial operating dates of South Korea’s power reactors through 2021.27

25

Ibid. 26

253rd

meeting of Korea AEC in 2004. See, for example, Ministry of Education, Science & Technology, Korean

Third National Report under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of

Radioactive Waste Management, dated October, 2008, and available as

www.kins.re.kr/pdf/Korean%20Third%20National%20Report%202008.pdf. 27

http://www.khnp.co.kr/en/03000100; http://www.khnp.co.kr/en/030100; Ministry of Knowledge Economy, The

4th Basic Plan of Long-Term Electricity Supply and Demand (2008 ~ 2022), December 2008.

16

Table 6: Current and Planned Nuclear Power Capacity in South Korea through 202128

Site Unit Type Capacity

(GWe) Operation

(year.month) Pool storage

capacity

(tHM) a

Programmed

capacity increase

from re-racking

(tHM)

Kori Kori-1

Kori-2

Kori-3

Kori-4

Shin-Kori-1

Shin-Kori -2

Shin-Kori -3

Shin-Kori -4

Shin-Kori -5

Shin-Kori -6

Subtotals

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

0.587

0.650

0.950

0.950

1.000

1.000

1.400

1.400

1.400

1.400

10.737

1978. 4

1983. 7

1985. 9

1986. 4

2010.12

2011.12

2013. 9

2014. 9

2018.12

2019.12

158.8

327.6

270.9

270.9

428.7

428.7

625.7

625.7

625.7

625.7

4388.4

696.4

697.4

_____

1393.8

Yonggwang Yonggwang-1

Yonggwang-2

Yonggwang-3

Yonggwang-4

Yonggwang-5

Yonggwang-6

Subtotals

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

0.950

0.950

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

5.900

1986. 8

1987. 6

1995. 3

1996. 1

2002. 5

2002.12

270.9

270.9

215.4

215.4

224.9

224.9

1422.4

697.4

186.8

268.3

268.3

_____

1420.8

Ulchin Ulchin-1

Ulchin-2

Ulchin-3

Ulchin-4

Ulchin-5

Ulchin-6

Shin-Ulchin-1

Shin-Ulchin-2

Shin-Ulchin-3

Shin-Ulchin-4

Subtotals

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

PWR

0.950

0.950

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.400

1.400

1.400

1.400

11.500

1988. 9

1989. 9

1998. 8

1999. 12

2004. 7

2005. 4

2015. 12

2016. 12

2020. 6

2021. 6

144.9

144.9

215.4

215.4

224.9

224.9

625.7

625.7

625.7

625.7

3673.2

297.7

273.7

352.6

352.6

_____

1276.6

Wolsong

CANDUs

Wolsung-1

Wolsung-2

Wolsung-3

Wolsung-4

Subtotals

HWR

HWR

HWR

HWR

0.679

0.700

0.700

0.700

2.779

1983. 4

1997. 7

1998. 7

1999. 10

842.7

736.8

736.8

736.8

3053.1

(6,930+ dry-cask

storage as of 2009)

29

Wolsung

PWRs

Shin-Wolsung-1

Shin-Wolsung-2

Subtotals

PWR

PWR

1.000

1.000

2.000

2012. 3

2013. 1

504.8

504.8

1009.6

a Pool storage capacity measured in metric tons of original uranium in the fuel (tons heavy metal or tHM). These

values do not include the pool capacity for a full reactor core that is held open in case all the fuel in the current

reactor core has to be unloaded quickly.

28

J.H. Mok et al., Examination on Amount of Spent Fuel Stored and Verification on Saturation Time of Pool

Capacities, Kookmin University, May 2009 (in Korean). 29

Jongwon Choi, “R&D Program for Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal,” Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,

27 May 2009.

17

Status and Prospect of Spent Fuel Generation

As of the end of 2008, 4,866 tons of spent PWR fuel and 6,082 tHM of spent HWR fuel were

stored in the spent fuel storage facilities at South Korea’s four NPP sites. Table 7 shows the

spent fuel inventories at the four sites as of the end of 2008. According to an analysis by the

operator, KHNP, the saturation dates for the current storage at the Kori, Yonggwang and Ulchin

sites for spent PWR fuel, and at the Wolsong site for spent HWR fuel, will be 2016, 2021, 2018

and 2017 respectively.30

Table 7: Inventory of spent fuels in South Korea as of the end of 200831

Kori site

(tHM)

Yonggwang site

(tHM)

Ulchin site

(tHM)

Wolsong site

(tHM)

1,768 1,732 1,366 2,912 in pools

3,170 in dry casks

Projections of spent fuel generation depend on the capacity factors of the reactors (that is, what

fraction of the time they operate and at what average fraction of their nominal capacities), and

the burnup of spent fuel (that is, the number of megawatt-days of heat that can be generated from

a kilogram of fuel before it is “spent”). The average discharged burnup level for spent PWR fuel

is around 50,000 MWd/tHM in today’s reactors.32

Heavy-water reactors are fueled with natural

uranium, and the burnup rate is about 7,100 MWd/tHM. Assuming that all NPPs have thermal

efficiencies of 33% and capacity factors of 90 percent, which is reasonably consistent with ROK

experience, the projections of cumulative spent fuel generation in South Korea from reactors

completed by 2030 are given in Figure 9 for the years 2010 through 2050. This study estimates

that approximately 51,000 tons of spent PWR fuel and approximately 20,000 tHM of spent HWR

fuel will be generated over the entire lifetimes (that is, until each unit is decommissioned,

whether before or after 2050) of the 35 PWR and 4 HWR units that will be deployed by 2030.

30

Ki-Chul Park, "Status and Prospect of Spent Fuel Management in South Korea," Nuclear Industry, August 2008

(in Korean). 31

J.H. Mok et al., op. cit. 32

Based on an initial uranium enrichment in fresh PWR fuel of 4.5 percent, J.H. Mok et al., Examination on Amount

of Spent Fuel Stored and Verification on Saturation Time of Pool Capacities, Kookmin University, May 2009

(Korean); The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, MIT, p. 119 (2003).

18

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Invento

ry (

tHM

)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

PWR

CANDU

TOTAL

Figure 9: Cumulative Inventory of Spent Fuel Generation in South Korea from Reactors

Deployed by 203033

Rough Cost Estimation of DBD Implementation

To estimate what the DBD option might cost as a spent fuel disposal option for South Korea, the

author made the assumption that 200-400 canisters containing a total of about 100-200 tHM of

spent PWR fuel can be accommodated in a borehole in crystalline basement rocks on the order of

5 km deep with a 1-2 km long waste disposal zone, while one borehole might hold about 1,600-

3,200 canisters containing about 32-64 tHM spent HWR fuel, assuming a canister length of 0.6

m.34

Table 8 shows the roughly-estimated annual costs of DBD construction through 2050 to

accommodate the ROKs spent fuel that has cooled for approximately 30 years to that date.

These costs are, based on a cost of about $20 million for construction of each 5 km-depth

33

The assumed 60 and 50-year operating lives for PWRs and HWRs, respectively, are based on the 1st National

Energy Basic Plan (2008-2030). 34

Typical HWR fuel, for example, in a CANDU fuel bundle, is about 50 cm in length, 10 cm in diameter, and

weighs about 20 kg HM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel#CANDU_fuel.

19

borehole, as included in the 2009 Sandia National Laboratory study referenced above35

. The

costs shown do not include any additional costs for items such as administration cost, and with

no real escalation (or reduction due to learning) in costs assumed. 2030 is assumed to be the

start year for borehole disposal. Table 8 shows the amount of spent fuel disposed of annually, as

well as the number of boreholes needed to dispose of cooled spent fuels using DBD from 2030

through 2050. Spent fuel disposal by year is based on historical spent fuel quantities removed

from ROK reactors through 2008. So, for example, the quantity of PWR fuel shown as being

sent to borehole disposal in 2033 is the amount removed from reactor cores in 2003. After 2008,

the estimates of annual new spent fuel production implied by Figure 9, plus 30 years, are used to

estimate the amount of spent fuel sent to disposal.

Due to the larger volume of spent fuel discharged, the cumulative cost of DBD for CANDU

(HWR) spent fuel for 2030 – 2050 is three times greater than that of PWR spent fuel, despite the

fact that PWRs produce much more of the ROK’s electricity than HWRs. To reduce the cost of

DBD, CANDU spent fuel needs to be more densely packed into canisters before it is subjected to

deep borehole disposal.

Table 8: The estimated annual cost of DBD construction from 2030 through 2050

Year PWRs CANDUs

Spent

Fuel

(tHM)

# of Boreholes M$ Spent Fuel

(tHM)

# of Boreholes M$

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047

2048

2049

2050

2450

247

258

257

185

298

297

336

538

297

317

338

357

405

432

461

489

488

516

545

572

12.3 – 24.5

1.2 – 2.5

1.3 – 2.6

1.3 – 2.6

0.9 – 1.9

1.5 – 3.0

1.5 – 3.0

1.7 – 3.4

2.7 – 5.4

1.5 – 3.0

1.6 – 3.2

1.7 – 3.4

1.8 – 3.6

2.0 – 4.1

2.2 – 4.3

2.3 – 4.6

2.4 – 4.9

2.4 – 4.9

2.6 – 5.2

2.7 – 5.5

2.9 – 5.7

245.0 – 490.0

24.7 – 49.4

25.8 – 51.6

25.7 – 51.4

18.5 – 37.0

29.8 – 59.6

29.7 – 59.4

33.6 – 67.2

53.8 – 107.6

29.7 – 59.4

31.7 – 63.4

33.8 – 67.6

35.7 – 71.4

40.5 – 81.0

43.2 – 86.4

46.1 – 92.2

48.9 – 97.8

48.8 – 97.6

51.6 – 103.2

54.5 – 109.0

57.2 – 114.4

2329

380

390

390

401

390

390

1312

102

390

390

390

390

390

390

390

390

390

390

390

390

36.4 – 72.8

5.9 – 11.9

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.3 – 12.5

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

20.5 – 41.0

1.6 – 3.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12..2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

6.1 – 12.2

727.8 – 1455.6

118.8 – 237.5

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

125.3 – 250.6

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

410.0 – 820.0

31.9 – 63.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

121.9 – 243.8

Total 10,083 50.4 – 100.8 1,008 – 2,017 10,758 168.1 – 336.2 3,362 – 6,724

35

Patrick V. Brady et al., Deep Borehole Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, SAND2009-4401, August

2009.

20

Overall, Table 8 shows that the undiscounted cost of disposing of the spent fuel generated in the

ROK and sufficiently cooled (30 years) for DBD disposal are in the range of about $4 to $9

billion from 2030 through 2050. Put into perspective, this cost amounts to about $0.001 to

$0.002 per kWh of electricity generated in nuclear power plants in the ROK through 2020.

Recent Public Opinion of Local Communities

The author of this report, Jungmin Kang, undertook a week-long research trip to South Korea’s

four NPPs sites in mid-September 2010. The followings are his key findings from the trip.

- The local people36

who live near nuclear power plants sites are not aware of the safety

superiority of dry cask storage of spent fuel, when compared with pool storage, and are

also not aware of the potential safety superiority of deep borehole disposal of spent fuel,

compared with normal geologic disposal.

- Local people showed an interest in considering on-site dry cask storage of spent fuel as

well as possible in-situ deep borehole disposal if the safety of those options were assured

by reliable experts and the local sites are properly compensated financially.

- Educating local people will be very important to achieving on-site dry cask storage of

spent fuel as well as possibly in-situ deep borehole disposal in South Korea.

Political and Legal Issues

There would be political implication of implementing DBD of spent fuel in South Korea. The

South Korean nuclear fuel cycle community, represented by KAERI, strongly insists on

pyroprocessing as its favored alternative for future spent fuel management in the ROK, and

would not support any kind of direct disposal of spent fuel in South Korea. Locals living near

nuclear facilities, on the other hand, have as their major goal safe geologic disposal of spent fuel

and/or HLW.

There are no current legal issues that might affect the practicality of borehole disposal of spent

fuel in South Korea, since the current South Korean Atomic Energy Act does not includes any

articles relevant to spent fuel disposal.

International Cooperation

A 2010 MIT study recommends research and development of deep borehole disposal for spent

fuel and HLW management,37

based on recent relevant research including a collaborative study

done by MIT and Sandia National Laboratories.38

36

Local people mentioned at this report are representatives of non-governmental organizations based near reactor

sites who Jungmin Kang met during his trips in mid-September 2010. 37

MIT, The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (2010). Available as

web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/spotlights/nuclear-fuel-cycle.pdf.

21

The US – Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan, a process started in 2007, reached a similar

conclusion in its May 2010 report of Phase I of its Waste Management Working Group, as

follows:39

“… we view the deep borehole disposal approach as a promising extension of geological

disposal, with greater siting flexibility and the potential to reduce the already very low risk of

long-term radiation exposure to still lower levels without incurring significant additional costs.”

Based on the results of these studies, opportunities for cooperation jointly with the US and Japan

on DBD would help to spur interest in the South Korean nuclear (scientific and policy)

community in DBD evaluation and consideration.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

Considering its potential safety superiority compared with normal geologic disposal, deep

borehole disposal could be an alternative, which could be more acceptable to local communities,

for the eventual disposal of spent fuel and/or HLW in South Korea.

Further study needs to be done to identify relevant technical issues, as well as to obtain

comprehensive public and local opinions on the deep borehole disposal possibility for the ROK.

38

Patrick V. Brady and Michael J. Driscoll, Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste: Report from a Sandia-MIT

Workshop on March 15, 2010 in Washington, DC. Dated May 7, 2010, available as

www.mkg.se/uploads/SNL_MIT_borehole_workshop_report_final_100507.pdf. 39

Information Basis for Developing Comprehensive Waste Management System – US-Japan Joint Nuclear Energy

Action Plan Waste Management Working Group Phase I Report, FCR&D-USED-2010-000051, Published Jointly as

JAEA-Research-2010-015, May 2010. Available as www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2010/05/67013.pdf.